Paper: 3G iPhone smaller, lighter than existing model - Page 3

I currently own an iPhone and if anything I'd want a larger screen not a smaller one. Screen real estate trumps size and weight for me (big time). Not only is a bigger screen better for Safari, video, photos, maps, etc., it's especially better for the virtual keyboard. Apple would be crazy to do that.

I want 3G speeds. I want laptop tethering (using the iPhone as a modem for accessing the internet without paying AT&T for yet another data plan). I want 3rd Party software applications. I want a bluetooth supported external keyboard so I can type lengthy text passages once in a while.

According to the 1996 American Automobile Manufacturers Association Facts & Figures (which references American Metal Market, for which AM&P columnist Al Wrigley is a writer), in 1996 there were 245 lbs. of plastic and plastic composites used in a "typical family vehicle." That is 12% of the overall weight.

All the people that think the "iPhone nano" won't have internet capabilities are out of their mind. Have you forgotten about the iTunes store or App store that is on the iPhone? No way in hell are they going to let that NOT be on the nano. After all, the nano will sell better than the original if it is released.

True, I've kind of changed my mind on that internet thing. It's be crippled in some way though, besides its screen size.

Wouldn't a smaller phone make it impossible to hold to your ear and talk on?
Unless Apple includes a free headset.
Then the electronics for talking and listening can be eliminated from the body of the phone.

Think different indeed!

Think more parts and more complex, no it would be fine being all in one.

It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.

2 versions - 4 SKUs.

8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely no plastic. The phone will be metal (brushed anodized aluminum/magnesium and glass. Apple's commitment to environmentally friendly materials will not include dumping 25 million plastic cases on the public.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark

16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version

-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.

If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.

I agree with many posters who are saying basically - if it's smaller, thinner, and more plastic based - then we're looking at a low end model (iPhone nano).

In fact, since it's plastic, it may as well be in Nano colours as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpspence

If apple comes out with an iPhone nano, do you really think it will have all the same features as the regular iPhone but smaller? If that were the case apple would just make it the regular iPhone. No, it will lose a feature, a la the iPod Nano not having video for years prior to the most recent one. I say the feature that it loses is internet access,

I'd be surprised if it was smaller. The inital launch had the 8GB modeling selling so much better than the 4GB model at $200 less that Apple discontinued the 4GB model. Apple is very controlling with it's releases and I can't see a smaller version with an even smaller display for Safari (Yes, it has to have Safari) will be attractive.

I think we'll only have a 3G iPhone in one model with 8 and 16GB capacities, with 16 and 32GB capacities coming about 7 months later.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

It's better for me to say I'm making it up. Take this info for whatever it's worth. This is the web after all.

2 versions - 4 SKUs.

8GB and 16GB - versions without slide keyboard - 3G with minor changes like
-Video
-Photo and video capture/record button on right-hand side. - volume button may be zoom button in camera mode.
-Definitely no plastic. The phone will be metal (brushed anodized aluminum/magnesium and glass. Apple's commitment to environmentally friendly materials will not include dumping 25 million plastic cases on the public.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software.
-Dual SIM capability passive
-No removable battery but better power management.
-No second camera for video on the front
-Not much thicker than current iPod Touch, no change in screen size.
-Possible AT&T subsidy to $200 on 8GB model - no Apple subsidy in Apple store. 8GB will fall away when 32GB launched
-Copy paste is still a question mark

16GB and 32GB Premium/Enterprise (BlackBerry switcher) version

-The whole rumor on the thick versus thinner stems from this; thick versus thin = sliding landscape keyboard add-on versus none on base model.Nothing to do with GPS making it thicker.
-Phone itself will be 3mm thinner and a 3mm sliding keypad add-on will make it appear slightly thicker, maybe 1mm thicker than current phone. - For a clear e.g. of how it may look, see Samsung U940 SKUs
-When keyboard is extended, additional battery may be clipped on.
-GPS but speaker-phone STILL not good enough.
-Camera can be disabled by Admin on config
-Same screen size (basically, identical front to base model)
-Recessed headphones may STILL be in place but standard iPod headphones will fit.
-Dual SIM capability active
-Photo/video record/ capture button on right-hand side.
-Not subsidized by AT&T.
-Metal & Glass
-Apple iPhone 2.0 software
-No removable battery
-This is the business version and it will cost (much) more.
-Copy-paste is still a question mark.

If the upgrade doesn't come out like this, this is pretty much the roadmap.
I can't post again on this. Probe all possible sources further. Look for SDK code on keyboard and extra battery power management.

Apple is ceding nothing to RIMM in the Enterprise.

How does the addon battery work then for the enterprise version?

If the phone is used with keyboard out, will all the program switch to landscape mode?

Green - how is metal necessarily greener than plastic in the general sense? I don't think there are absolutes here, I'm guessing there's a knee-jerk rationalization going on that may not reflect reality. Metal takes a lot of energy to make too, it must be mined, generally through very disruptive mining processes, melted at high temperatures and formed at high pressures and even reheated at several parts. Plastics are recyclable too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland

The exterior dude.

Isn't that enough though?

If I were to carry on the same kind of analogy, maybe I'd say Apple shouldn't be using aluminum for cases since most cars don't have a whole lot of structural aluminum. It may be that the cost of materials for such a large product would be prohibitive, but for handheld devices, the cost of materials is probably the least of the concerns.

Mobile phone market is very different than computers market. When it comes to mobile phones people want features. Still, people will not pay $200 for a stripped down iPhone while they can get a phone for free. Any new additional device that compromise any of the current iPhone features will be a complete failure. The average person don't care if it has an Apple logo on the back, they care about how much they get for the money. When it comes to budget phones other manufacturers will win because the only innovation is price. Unless Apple give free iPhone Nano with contracts!!

Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.

From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.

From simple phones to complex smartphones.

I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.

Od course. That's why you can get phones for free,or for thousands of dollars for tricked up versions.

From small clamshell designs to large ones with sliding keyboards. with or without 3G.

From simple phones to complex smartphones.

I can go on, but what's the point? The phone market is, if anything, even MORE diversified than the computer market.

I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.

I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.

I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.

I suspect many would prefer a smaller phone and see little benefit in having the internet with them at all times. I bought a Nano over a Touch four months ago because it is a better iPod (in my mind). A lot of people would look at Ireland's iPhone Nano (smaller and without the internet) and think "better." There is room for both products, and I'd be surprised if we don't see an iPhone Nano eventually.

The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.

The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.

Disagree. It is a phone and an iPod; and allows people to merge two devices that they actually use into one device.

People who own music-phones don't listen to music on their phones. They have iPods because music-phones suck. An iPhone without the internet is still a superior iPod, which makes it much more than an average phone.

I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.

NasserAE, I agree there should be two models.
But the Apple way is not to lower the price point, but to drop the current model altogether.

The low-end model should be based on the current model. But with a better jack, colored cases and the lowest possible price point. Which might mean compromising on some of the materials. For instance a plastic case, and even a plastic screen. A subsidized $99 iPhone might just be the number one Christmas gift for teens across the planet.

The high-end model should be uncompromised 3G device.

Of the two, I suspect the low-end model would outsell the high-end by 3 to 1.

I agree that this doesn't sound right. But neither does a thicker iPhone.

K

Make sense to a lot of man who don't want the brick footprint in their pants.
Smaller is better. Just as many of us don't want to carry wallets in own pants, we want a smaller phone than what is currently offered.

when people are paying more than a $1000 for the iphone why lower the price, they don't think the 399 price point makes sense....????? maybe this is for corp buyers why lower the price on a high demand unit??? cheapening the brand??

The market is already saturated with mp3 player phones without good internet experience that cost nothing. The selling point of the iPhone is full internet experience in your pocket, an iPhone without a large touch screen and internet is just another average phone.

Not really- you can't play iTunes purchase on other phone.
Many people myself included don't want or have any need for a data plan and would buy an iPhone without one if offered.

I am not saying that Apple will not sell another iPhone, I am saying Apple will not sell another iPhone with lower specs (being smaller screen or else). In my opinion,the more logical move is to lower the price of the current iPhone (2.5G) and present new redesigned superior 3G iPhone for $499.

Quite possible. It makes sense.

Apple would, however, not just sell the same iPhone at a cheaper price. If it ROUGHLY wants to keep the current iPhone as you describe, it would look at all the technology improvements in the last year (smaller components, lower power, cheaper) and repackage the iPhone. Perhaps it would look identical, but it might also be made 30% thinner with little effort. Remember also that the 3G iphone is rumoured to be slightly thicker.

This would be an interesting cannibalisation - a 2G iPhone vs 3G iPhone, where the face looks almost identical on both, but where the 3G is double the thickness and costs more (but offers great features like GPS, video calling, and 3G).

That thinness and cheap price would be appealing... I might not go for the 3G!

On the other hand - I wouldn't want to have a smaller screen - but Apple may have had to decide whether a cheaper (smaller) screen with the smaller parts now available made sense. A smaller screen would be less attractive and would also mean that the phone couldn't be made thinner. They might decide that a cheaper, smaller, coloured iPhone wouldnt cannibalise 3G sales, but would be perfect for school kids who will upgrade to the REAL thing in a couple of years. And the people who'd like cheaper coloured iPhone Nanos probably have smaller fingers for typing anyway :-)

It is just really strange that we have not seen any photos of the upgrade yet. I know apple holds these things close to there vest, but we saw photos of the iPhone in January of 2007 before it was released in June of 2007. I am thinking that it will be announced, but be out by the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009.

As is the case with iPod Nano and MacBook Air, for example, smaller doesn't necessarily equal LOW END. It equals smaller. Sometimes such devices are lower priced, sometimes higher.

Someone buying a nano may not be looking for a low end lower priced device than an iPod Touch, they may just be looking for smaller and perhaps need fewer features.

Personally I want same screen size as iPhone, though lighter and thinner would be very good as long as the iPhone does not have Blackjack-style battery life.

There is no chance that any iPhone device will lack the ability to connect to the internet. Perhaps not full on Safari browsing, but limted to internet applications. But, there simply cannot be a phone device without access to data networks. Can you imagine?

Not really- you can't play iTunes purchase on other phone.
Many people myself included don't want or have any need for a data plan and would buy an iPhone without one if offered.

If Apple sells the iPhone unlocked, which they will soon, then you don't have to buy the data plan. Furthermore, parental controls have the ability to disable the internet. Most people I know don't care about iTunes, they just want their songs on their cheap phone.

firstly, I a jazz musician that loves gadgets , my first computer was a powerbook, I travel quite a bit and since I always have a big ass tenor sax on my back anything I bigger than I can stuff in a shoulder bag in a no no I owned a newton, and I presently own a macbook and iphone . I really think if apple goes smaller screen with plastic body it would totally ruin exactly what made me buy a dam iphone in the first place! it would be flat out stupid. I was actually hoping that they would keep the sleek look of the iphone in metal!!! and go toward a bigger screen something like 4 or 5 inches, faster processor,built in sd card, flash support, and a real camera with video recording. something more like a "iphone newton". going the other direction would mean "GAME OVER" , it would render it totally usless! shit, I would pay almost anything to get a touch screen 7" tablet running real Mac os x